Schaller Andrea, Petrowski Katja, Pfoertner Timo-Kolja, Froboese Ingo
IST-Hochschule University of Applied Sciences, Erkrather Str. 220 a-c, 40233, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Institute of Health Promotion and Clinical Movement Science, German Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Muengersdorf 6, 50933, Cologne, Germany.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Nov 6;18(1):431. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1788-6.
The promotion of physical activity is a major field in rehabilitation and health promotion but evidence is lacking on what method or strategy works best. Ensuing from this research gap, the present study compared the effectiveness of a comprehensive theory based multicomponent intervention (Movement Coaching) to a low intensity intervention in low back pain patients.
A monocenter randomized controlled trial with three measuring points (T0 = baseline, T1 = six month follow-up, T2 = twelve month follow-up) was conducted. N = 412 chronic low back pain patients participated. The Movement Coaching group (n = 201) received a comprehensive multicomponent intervention with small-group intervention, phone- and web 2.0-intervention. The low intensity control (n = 211) received two oral presentations that were available for download afterwards. Main outcome was total physical activity measured by Global Physical Activity Questionnaire at 12 month follow-up. Additionally, workplace, leisure time and transportation activities were compared. A split-plot anova was conducted for evaluating repeated measure effects and between group effects.
At six and twelve month follow-up there were no statistically significant between group differences in total (T1: p = 0.79; T2: p = 0.30) as well as domain-specific physical activity (workplace (T1: p = 0.16; T2: p = 0.65), leisure time (T1: p = 0.54; T2: p = 0.89), transportation (T1: p = 0.29; T2: p = 0.77) between Movement Coaching and the control group. In both groups, workplace physical activity showed the highest proportion of total physical activity. From baseline to twelve month follow-up the results showed a decline in total physical activity (Movement Coaching: p = 0.04; control group: p = 0.50).
The comprehensive Movement Coaching intervention was not found to be more effective than a low intensity intervention in promoting total and domain-specific physical activity in chronic low back pain patients.
This study is registered at German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS)-ID: DRKS00004878 .
促进身体活动是康复和健康促进的一个主要领域，但对于哪种方法或策略效果最佳缺乏证据。鉴于这一研究空白，本研究比较了基于综合理论的多组分干预（运动指导）与低强度干预对腰痛患者的有效性。
进行了一项单中心随机对照试验，有三个测量点（T0 = 基线，T1 = 六个月随访，T2 = 十二个月随访）。N = 412名慢性腰痛患者参与。运动指导组（n = 201）接受了包括小组干预、电话和网络2.0干预的综合多组分干预。低强度对照组（n = 211）接受了两次口头报告，之后可下载。主要结局是在十二个月随访时通过全球身体活动问卷测量的总身体活动。此外，还比较了工作场所、休闲时间和交通活动。进行了裂区方差分析以评估重复测量效应和组间效应。
在六个月和十二个月随访时，运动指导组和对照组之间在总身体活动（T1：p = 0.79；T2：p = 0.30）以及特定领域身体活动（工作场所（T1：p = 0.16；T2：p = 0.65）、休闲时间（T1：p = 0.54；T2：p = 0.89）、交通（T1：p = 0.29；T2：p = 0.77））方面没有统计学上的显著组间差异。在两组中，工作场所身体活动在总身体活动中所占比例最高。从基线到十二个月随访，结果显示总身体活动有所下降（运动指导组：p = 0.04；对照组：p = 0.50）。
在促进慢性腰痛患者的总身体活动和特定领域身体活动方面，未发现综合运动指导干预比低强度干预更有效。
本研究已在德国临床试验注册中心（DRKS）注册 - ID：DRKS00004878 。
